Background
Adam Blocker was convicted of two counts related to child pornography after the FBI discovered illegal images on his computers and cloud storage. Dropbox had previously identified and reported child pornography in Blocker’s files to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which alerted federal authorities. Blocker pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court’s reasoning
The court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment applies only to searches by public officials, and Dropbox is a private entity. While the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has a federal charter, the court assumed without deciding that Dropbox was not a government agent. The court focused on the terms of service Blocker agreed to, which explicitly permitted Dropbox to examine data to ensure lawful use and disclose information to third parties if necessary to comply with the law. The court found this language unambiguous and sufficient to constitute voluntary consent. The court rejected the argument that the contract was unconscionable or that the provider’s private motive to protect its platform negated the consent. The court distinguished this case from decisions in other circuits that required a more explicit obligation to search, stating that a grant of permission to search remains a valid consent even if the provider is not obligated to search every file.
What it means going forward
The ruling clarifies that users who agree to broad terms of service with cloud providers may be deemed to have consented to searches for illegal content, even if the provider is not contractually obligated to conduct such searches. This decision creates a circuit split with the Fourth, Second, and Sixth Circuits, which have adopted a stricter standard for consent in similar contexts.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download